On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:25:23PM -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 09/05/2007 03:16 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:57:13PM -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> >
> >> You're doing the right thing by using Hibernate, but IMHO, blindly
> >> pursuing "database independence" is far worse than tying yourself to a
> >> single DB engine.
> >>
> > I believe you're assuming that you're completely familiar with all the
> > terms of his cost-benefit analysis, and how the results tally.
> >
> > I suspect you're not. :-)
>> I didn't say he was blindly pursuing database independence, and I even
> asked him (in the clipped portion of my message) about the business
> requirements driving the push for database independence at his company.
The context suggested that you were; my apologies.
> I /am/ saying that adding DB independence to Myth is "blindly pursing
> database independence" as I can't think of a single business requirement
> for it. Of course, as there's no business involved... :)
Correct. The real issue here is that everyone builds their own, and
*if theirs breaks because MySQL sucks^Wis a less impressive DBMS engine
than PgSQL*, they're the only one who bitches.
If I *were* building commercial boxen, and I had 10,000 of them out
there, paying someone to dig those dependencies out and make it
possible for me to run them atop Pg would almost certainly be one of my
first budget items. I didn't say I felt *general* DBMS compatibility
was a necessity.
Lots of people are perfectly comfortable exposing their business to
MySQL. Others wouldn't dream of it. In the latter camp, here. ;-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274